Policy first, party second

“It is irresponsible for voters to just give a vote to his or her party’s candidate without knowing anything about that candidate.”

— State Rep. Peter Schmidt, D-Dover

On Tuesday, Dover State Rep. Peter Schmidt gave one of the simplest and most cogent reasons for opposing a bill to bring back straight ticket voting.

Party over policy is not a solution; it is a problem — if not the problem.

Straight ticket voting is a leftover notion from the days when voters weren’t given credit for being able to make decisions for themselves. Before it was eliminated in many states, one-check voting was fiercely defended by party bosses who relished the notion that a strong candidate at the top of the ticket could sweep weaker candidates into office.

Those same party bosses also used straight ticket voting to ward off opponents of the two-party system. By simply checking off a single box over a single party it became nigh on impossible for fledgeling third party efforts to take root — beyond an individual candidate here or there. Unfortunately, even without straight ticket voting New Hampshire continues to make it difficult to successfully mount third party efforts.

As noted by WatchDog.org, state law requires third party candidates for governor or senate to earn ballot access for their party in the next election by getting four percent of all ballots cast in a statewide election. Meanwhile, only the Republican and Democratic Parties are recognized as major parties in New Hampshire, which pays for each party’s Primary Election every other September, and guarantees their nominees a spot on the General Election Ballot. The state also funds the First in the Nation Presidential Primaries every four years. Third-party candidates or political organizations wanting to get onto the November ballot need to collect signed petitions totaling three percent of all votes cast in the last General Election.

Another prime argument in favor of reinstituting straight ticket ballots also falls short.

On Tuesday, bill co-sponsor Rep. Jeanine Notter, R-Merrimack, told the House Committee on Election Law straight ticket voting would reduce lines at the polls that reportedly delayed counting ballots on many communities last November.

We would suggest that there are myriad ways to otherwise improve the efficiency of the voting processing. In addition, much of the slowdown in November was due to the new voter ID requirements which, as expected, demanded more time on the part of voters and election officials. In future elections we expect that process to move along in much faster fashion.

But even with delays, it is hard to believe that voters should not be asked to put some time and effort into the process of deciding who leads their local community, state or nation. It strikes us as somehow incongruous that in nations around the world voters will risk their lives to vote. Yet, in the United States convenience seems more important.

Again, Schmidt was right on target when he told the committee, “Convenience of the voters as a determining factor is not a useful factor to override what should be a careful selection” — an understatement if we’ve ever heard one.